dwd-mcp

dwd_find_place

Find German places by name and return coordinates, with German hits prioritized.

Instructions

Find German places by name and return coordinates. query: e.g. "München" or "Freiburg". German hits first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "dwd_find_place"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavior beyond the schema — "German hits first" ranking preference for ambiguous names — and confirms coordinates are returned, but says nothing about ambiguity handling, matching tolerance, or failure behavior for unknown places.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the core action and return value are front-loaded, followed by a compact input example and the ranking caveat. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, input format, and the ranking quirk, so return values need not be explained. The only real gap is absent guidance on how ambiguous or non-German place names are handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single `query` parameter is undocumented in the schema itself. The description compensates by giving concrete example values ("München", "Freiburg"), implying a bare place name without country or region qualifiers, which is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Find German places by name") plus the returned artifact ("coordinates"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but the purpose is distinct enough from weather/forecast/pollen tools that confusion is unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool geocodes a place name, which an agent would infer is a prerequisite step before weather lookups. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server